If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Don't use words whose meaning you don't understand please. Especially since you're unable to refute anything I've said. Why is Mir necessary? What benefit does it provide to Linux? You can't answer these questions, because there is no benefit. Everything was going great with Wayland, then Canonical decided to come out with Mir and create all this confusion and hassle. And now you parrot their rhetoric on the forums, willingly ignoring all facts in order to stay true to the shuttleworthian dogma...

Comment

The difference is that in case of Mir Canonical has rights to the code that others don't while everyone has the same rights to Wayland source code.

So the difference is that, with Mir, only one company could possibly make a proprietary version, whilst with Wayland, every company can make a proprietary version. Neither solution is optimal for open source, but I'm not seeing why the latter would be better.

Comment

The quote was talking exactly about that clause. In practise it doesn't prevent proprietary only licensing.

Not exactly. You link speak about the case of :
- The CLA don't permit to re-licence the code in proprietary licence. The obligation of publish in the original licence is still here.
- And in this case the guy explain that it is possible to relicence in BSD licence and after that in Proprietary licence because the BSD licence permit it.
But in realty I think is wrong. Because if the BSD licence give you this possibility, you still have the obligation to respect the CLA... So you can't.

To resume they are wrong. The owner (for example Canonical) have the obligation to respect the CLA. And republish the code in the original licence + another licence.

Comment

"As a condition on the exercise of this right, We agree to also
license the Contribution under the terms of the license or
licenses which We are using for the Material on the
Submission Date."

I understand that can do some sub-licence but always licence in the original licence too.

Yes thats the important bit alright. Read it again and think about it for a minute. Your contribution will be available under the GPL so for example if you contribute to version 1 of Mir your contribution WILL be licenced under the GPL for version 1 of Mir.
However the key part is "We agree to ALSO license the Contribution" they DO NOT say it will ONLY be licensed under that licence. So they can create any number of forks under different licences and still conform to their agreement because your contribution is licenced under the GPL in version 1. They have every right to licence Version 2 under a closed licence only.

If you are interested the highest profile case I can think of this type of thing happening is with Open Office (originally under GPL). Sun used to have a similair agreement for Open Office contributions. Sun changed the licence so that it could licence the code to IBM under a closed source arrangement and when Oracle took over this is how they were able to relicence it to an apache licence and donate it to the apache project. Anyway thats why LibreOffice is GPL and OpenOffice is now Apache.

Comment

So in order to make sure they get it right we will probably have Wayland ready somewhere around 2050. Or 2100 to get it REAALLY right.

They got it right. already

That's why the Mir people simply copied all of it

One word: freedom. Because they can. They can fork the whole kernel and create their own modified version and then create the coolest marketing campaign on Earth and wipe the floor with all the other distros.

Google already did that, and were successful with their Linux-but-not-Linux operating system.

And just like this Mir stuff, it had essentially zero impact on desktop Linux. Private walled gardens are like that, they don't mix with the free software ecosystem.

Comment

Yes thats the important bit alright. Read it again and think about it for a minute. Your contribution will always be available under the GPL so for example if you contribute to version 1 of Mir your contribution WILL be licenced under the GPL for version 1 of Mir.
However the key part is "We agree to also license the Contribution" they DO NOT say it will ONLY be licensed under that licence. So they can create any number of forks under different licences and still conform to their agreement because your contribution is licenced under the GPL in version 1. They have every right to licence Version 2 under a closed licence only.

No "version" history here.
If your "contribution" is in the Version 2 they have the obligation to publish it in the original licence + other sub-licence.

If you are interested the highest profile case I can think of this type of thing happening is with Open Office (originally under GPL). Sun used to have a similair agreement for Open Office contributions. Sun changed the licence so that it could licence the code to IBM under a closed source arrangement and when Oracle took over this is how they were able to relicence it to an apache licence and donate it to the apache project. Anyway thats why LibreOffice is GPL and OpenOffice is now Apache.

You speak about other type of CLA. Each one is different. And in this case Libre Office still have the right of the GPL licence. But is another history.